Report of Indiana Centennial commission to the General assembly

LIBRARY OF

CONGRESS

0 014 751840 7

Conservation Resources
Lig-Free® Type I

REPORT OF

IndianaCentennial Commission

H^

^1^

TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
1913

1— 0<2. Y

D. OF D.

1313

^ Indiana Centennial Commission

r

Charles L. Jewett. New Albany, I'residiMit.

Charles W. Fairbanks, Indianapolis.

Joseph M. Cravens, Madison.

Frank M. Kistler, Logaiisport.

Demarchi's C. Brown, Indianapolis. Secretary.

To the Sixty-eighth General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

This report is made in compliance with the act of March 1,
1911, creating a Commission, to consist of five members as follows :
The State Librarian, one Senator, one Representative and two
other persons to be appointed by the Governor.

The Commission was therenpon made up as follows :

State Librarian, Demarchiis C. Brown.

Senator Frank M. Kistler, named by the President of the Sen-
ate.

Representative Joseph M. Cravens, named by the Speaker of
the House.

Messrs. Charles W. Fairbanks and Charles L. Jewett, appointed
by the Governor.

June 2, 1911, the Commission organized by selecting Charles
L. Jewett, president, and Demarchiis C. Brown, secretary, and has
since held eleven regular meetings at the State House.

Messrs. Kistler and Cravens are respectively members of the
Senate and House- and can fully explain any matter to either
branch or any committee of the General Assembly, while Commis-
sioner Brown will have at his office in the State House during
your session the minutes of the Commission and all papers, cor-
respondence and documents bearing on the matters mentioned in
this report.

Therefore, aside from the recommendations made, it is deemed
sufficient to simply recite the doings of the Commission and give
the reasons why it is unable to submit plans and specifications for
a Centennial building and options upon a selected site as directed
by Section 6 of the act.

AS TO THE PROPOSED SITE

Section 8 of the act required the Commission to consult with
the Board of Park Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis and
the Board of Commissioners of Marion County as to the purchase
of real estate for the site for the proposed educational building,
the share to be paid by each and the ownership of the "-round
thereafter. The Board of Commissioners was invited to consult
with the Commission upon these matters and failed to do so, but
this is unimportant, because at no time has such progress been
made that any definite or binding negotiations could have been
concluded.

Several joint meetings of the Commission and the Board of
Park Commissioners of the city of Indianapolis were held in an
effort to settle upon a site for the proposed building, and earnest
efforts were made to evolve some plan whereby such building
would be given a site and a proper setting west of the State House
grounds and adjacent to Military Park, and make the same part of
the beautiful plaza system which the Park Commissioners are en-
deavoring to secure for Indianapolis. To make the site of the
building part of the proposed plaza and park system was evidently
in the mind of those who drew the act of March 1, 1911, other-
wise it would not have proposed that Indianapolis bear part of
the cost of the site. The Park Commissioners gave generous aid
to the work of the Commission in that respect, furnishing maps,
estimates of the cost of ground, list of property owners, etc., all of
which was so thoroughly and cheerfully done that the Commission
desires to thank this body of earnest, patriotic, unselfish men, and
to congratulate the city of Indianapolis on having the services of
such a board with Dr. Jameson as its head.

Yet this board, while eager to devote all the funds which it
properly could toward the scheme of having the Centennial build-
ing made part of the contemplated plaza of the city of Indian-
apolis, was not able to assure the Commission of sufficient aid to
justify it in recommending that the State pay the enormous addi-
tional sum necessary to secure the real estate. In addition, the
existence of a railroad track on the ground presented an almost
insurmountable objection to the selection of that locality as the site
for the building.

The Commission was therefore compelled to choose a site itself
and fixed upon Block No. 33, the square lying beyond Ohio street,
immediately north of the State House grounds, and sought to take

options on the entire square. It is the belief of the Commission
that the south half of the square, nearest the State House grounds,
is all that is absolutely necessary, although the occupation of the
entire square would be far better. The firm of Hugg & Beeler was
employed to secure from the several owners offers to sell all the
ground in Block 38, the square above named, and did so except in
a few instances where the o^vners of the ground refused to name
any price. In every instance the prices asked were exorbitant.
For instance, the southeast corner of the block is occupied by a
lather old hotel building. This corner is assessed for taxation at
only $69,700, yet the owners demanded that the Commissioners
take an option on it at the price of $200,000. The entire cost of
the ground, estimating the price of the owners, who refused to name
(me, on the basis of the prices asked by those who did, would be
$926,500.

The Commission believed that it would not be faithful to the
trust reposed in it by Section 4 of the act if it bound the State to
pay options at this excessive valuation by the owners, and there-
fore declined to take any options, and now reports that if this site
is secured the propert}^ ought to be appropriated by condemnation
proceedings for that purpose.

Prices were also secured on part of the lots in Block 49 west
of the Capitol and these are also shown in the Exhibits "E" and
"P,"' hereto attached. They aggregate $738,750, and are highly
excessive.

The Commission never seriously considered Block 49 as a site
for the proposed building.

One sufficient reason for this is that it would enlarge the State
House grounds in the form of an "L" and the building would be
surrounded on at least two sides by manufacturing, business and
commercial structures.

This Commission therefore recommends as a site for the pro-
posed Centennial building the block of ground (or at least the
south half thereof) north of, and separated from the State House
grounds by Ohio street, which should be vacated and made part of
the State House grounds.

II.

AS TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PRO-
POSED BUILDING.

Section 5 of the law required the Commission to invite the
competition of architects in the formulation of plans for the build-
ing and to advertise the fact that the Commission was considerinii-
such plans, and this requirement was complied with. The sur-
prising fact was thereupon disclosed that there exists in the United
States a combination of practically all architects, amounting to
what is now commonly denominated ' ' a trust. ' ' This combine calls
itself The American Institute of Architects.

Your Commission was notified that no plans could be submitted
by any architect belonging to this combination unless the Commis-
sion first formulated a "program" setting forth many details, not
necessary here to recite, since they fully appear in the correspond-
ence marked Exhibit "C."

In a good faith attempt to meet this objection the Commission
procured a program to be drawn up by Bolilen & Sons, members
of the American Institute of Architects. This being submitted to
the authorities of the Institute was, after months' delay, rejected,
not because of any defect in the program but because Indiana had
not yet by law appropriated the funds for the educational build-
ing and for the further reason that this Commisvsion could not
guarantee that the architect whose plan might be approved by you
would be paid his fee and receive the contract to act as supervising
architect. In other words, this body of architects, having first put
the Commission to the expense and trouble of getting up a program,
then raised a question which, if it had been raised in the first place,
would have rendered the program unnecessary. Your Commission
was so anxious to obtain plans that it sought some way in which
it could give a legal guarantee and satisfy these particular gentle-
men, but no way could be found, altliough the Attorney-Genera]
v\-as appealed to for an opinion, which is hereto attached, marked
Exhibit "A-1."

At the suggestion of the National Committee on Competition
of this American Institute of Architects, this Commission prepared
a program calling for competition from which a half a dozen ar-
chitects might ])e chosen by the Commission to enter this competi-
tion, but this w^as also rejected by the committee. An appeal was
taken to the Executive Connnittee of the American Institute of
Architects, which also rejected the program for the same reasons

that led to the rejection of the orio'inal program. (See correspond-
ence Exhibit "C")

Because of these rulings members of the American Institute
of Architects, comprising as already stated, substantially all the
architects in the country, would not compete. The law required
competition. Hence no plans could be procured to present to you,
and your Commission so reports.

The law required that the advertisement for plans should fix
the maxinuim cost of the building, and this was fixed at $800,000,
after careful investigation as to the cost of a building of proper
dignity, proportions and capacity. This amount we believe wall be
required for the building alone, exclusive of cost of a site.

The Commission recommends to the General Assembly that the
sum of $800,000 be appropriated for the construction of the build-
ing and a further sum sufficient to cover the cost of the site.

Such appropriations will at once create a deficit in the treas-
ury, and the Commission further recommends that the amount
above named be raised by the issue of bonds of the State, running
at least forty years, to the end that taxes shall not now be increased
but the burden borne by the coming generation of taxpayers. Those
who are now paying taxes have already sufficiently discharged
their duty in that regard by the erection of our splendid State
capitol and benevolent and penal institutions.

The act creating the Commission appropriated $1,000 for its
expenses. Of this there has been expeiided the sum of $295.35,
which amount has paid the expenses of the Commissioners, adver-
tising, clerical service, printing, postage, stationery, and indeed
every expense incurred by the Commission except the bill for draw-
ing the program, which has not yet been presented.

Bound by the limitations of the law and baffled by the unreason-
able demands of the American Institute of Architects and the greed
of the owners of the real estate, the Commission has accomplished
little aside from disclosing difficulties which were imdreamed of
and which must be removed by legislation if the idea of a Centen-
nial building is to be carried out.

It recommends that efficient statutes be enacted by the General
Assembly to condemn a site, the proper appropriations made to pay
for the site and for the construction of a building w^orthy of the
greatness of Indiana and dignity of the event the building is to
commemorate.

Ample time will remain after your adjournment to obtain a
site and complete the building before the 100th anniversary'- of the
State. Unless you do this the opportunity will be lost forever.

In this connection we beg to state that with the approval and
assistance of your Commission a voluntary organization has been
formed to take charge of and carry out the details of a proper
celebration in connection with the dedication of the proposed Cen-
tennial building. It is composed of patriotic citizens of the State
from each Congressional District, headed by Dr. Frank B. Wynn
of Indianapolis, and is commended to your confidence and co-
operation.

Respectfully submitted,

CHARLES L. JEWETT,

President.
DEMARCHUS C. BROWN, Secretary.

December 31, 1912.

A SEPARATE SUGGESTION BY ONE OF THE
COMMISSIONERS

What follows binds no one but myself. It is contrary to the
views of CoDimissioners Fairbanks and Brown. I believe Commis-
sioners Kistler and Cravens are inclined to favor it.

Nor must it be regarded as a dissent from the unanimous rec-
ommendation of the Commission contained in the foregoing report,
for in that I heartily concur. The wealth and greatness of Indiana
demand that its 100th anniversary be commemorated in a noble
and dignified way and this cannot be adequately done except by
acquiring Block 33 and the intervening street and erecting thereon
a building worthy of .the occasion it would thereafter forever recall.
[ earnestly hope that the patriotism and courage of the General
Assembly will be equal to such a course.

Nevertheless, as a practical man I know that this hope may not
be realized, and in that event submit the following alternative rec-
ommendation.

The State House is now overcrowded and the State must soon
either build or rent an additional building for the transaction of
its business. By removing the State Library and the educational
and scientific institutions from their present quarters the State
House would aifford room for the needs of the State for many years
to come. A Centennial building of imposing character and ap-
pearance, sufficient to furnish this acconunodation can be erected
upon the State House grounds between the north end of the State
House and the middle line of Ohio street. The State owns the
south half of Ohio street, and if tliat be vacated (which can be
done by special act without the consent of anybody), Ohio street
will still be wide enough for all practical purposes, indeed, wider
than many of the business streets of Philadelphia, Baltimore and
Boston. The site thus made available will be more extensive than
the sites of many of the finest buildings of Europe. In the unfor-
tunate event that the present General Assembly fails to carry out
the recommendations of our foregoing report, I recommend the
vacation of Ohio street to the middle line, making the vacated por-
tion part of the State House grounds, that the Centennial building
he erected north of the State House and that the sum of $800,000
be appropriated for the erection of such building.

Respectfully submitted,

CHARLES L. JEWETT.

ANOTHER SUGGESTION BY ONE OF THE
COMMISSIONERS.

The undersigned commissioner l:)elieves that Square 49 is the
most suitable site for the Indiana Educational Building, provided
that the Park Commissioners of Indianapolis will purchase the
square west of 49 and also develop a plaza and boulevard scheme
connecting with White River. The reasons are as follows :

1. It makes a system of public buildings and grounds connect-
ing with Militaiy Park, which is the property of the State.

2. It opens the possibility of further development for State
buildings which will be needed in the future, when other squares
can be added.

3. It will cost lest than square 33.

4. It will remove undesirable structures from the neighbor-
hood of the capitol.

If this combination with the Park Commissioners cannot be
made, then Square 33 should be purchased.

DEMARCHUS C. BROWN.

LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS

0 014 751 840 7

n